The findings revealed significant differences in the Spanish samples and that the samples were not directly represented in either of the databases under examination. Results indicated that all of the 37 crania estimated by the authors to be female were also classified as female by both the Forensic Data Bank and the Howells database of museum samples. On the other hand, 57 percent of the 58 crania determined by the authors to be male were classified as females using the Forensic Data Bank and 52 percent were classified as females using the Howells database. The findings suggest that a Spanish sample is not well represented within the FORDISC 2.0 databases. As such, these databases should complement and not displace other means of analysis. The authors argue that because the Spanish crania tend to be comparatively small, the sex discrepancy was likely caused by FORDISC’s classification based solely on measurement without a consideration of non-metric observations. In terms of racial classifications, the Forensic Data Bank classified 44 percent of the 95 crania as White, 35 percent as Black, 9 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Japanese, 4 percent as American Indian, and the remaining individuals as Chinese and Vietnamese. On the other hand, the Howells database of museum samples classified most of the 95 individuals as Egyptian followed by a medieval sample from Austria. Data were drawn from a skeletal collection housed in southwest Spain that likely dates from the 16th to the 17th century and represents individuals from that area. For this analysis, measurements were recorded on 95 individuals, 58 of which were assessed to be male and 37 female using gross morphological indicators. References